Paper short abstract:

The paper presents a cautionary tale of a junior researchers' challenges in exiting the field - in this case, a government bureaucracy. It shows how pressure from powerful gatekeepers can result in negotiation around consent and control of material, and the implications for researcher obligations.

Paper long abstract:

While government bureaucracies are often impregnable to an outsider ethnographer, this paper presents a cautionary tale about the pressures faced if access is gained. Exiting the field presents if anything a graver challenge. Gatekeepers can reach into the writing, blocking the researchers' ability to exit the field and to proceed to the distance needed to develop the analysis. The pressure can be particularly inhibiting if the researcher is in a vulnerable position in the context of their career. The paper reviews a case drawn from the author's experience of completing his doctoral thesis, an ethnographic study of an office in a government department. Ultimately the author agreed with the gatekeeper to embargo the thesis, whilst accepting a process for publication of articles. The paper situates the discussion of ethics in the context of the pressure brought to bear by the gatekeeper on the drafting process: in particular, it addresses the limits of consent when fieldwork is likely to evolve. The paper analyses the outcome as a negotiated compromise between the researcher and the key gatekeeper, under threat of legal action and at a time of considerable personal vulnerability: a process that moved from the bureaucratic and rule-like forms of ethics, to a compromise between individuals. The paper discusses the academy's obligations to protect the researcher and the nature of the researcher's obligations to the academy. It shows how mistakes are made and compromises reached at a time of considerable vulnerability - and asks under what circumstances 'studying up' is possible.